Davefevs Posted August 22, 2018 Report Share Posted August 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, Olé said: Well spotted Dave - I noticed that too. And as stated at the time of the Wright charge, how can you be independent when you are a matchday host at Sheffield United, in the same division? Exactly, conflict of interest....in Utd’s best interest for every opposition player to get banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted August 22, 2018 Report Share Posted August 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, Chris_Brown said: Would we be arguing there was plenty of evidence? I think most people are capable of being objective enough to realise there is not "plenty of evidence" at all. I think if the boot was on the other foot we would argue that our player wouldn't react as he did without just cause, but that really doesn't go very far in terms of offering proof that spitting actually happened. Spot on. Some people say there's plenty of evidence, but I just can't see it personally. Ha course you're (In Dean's case) gonna corroborate what your mate says, particular if there is the chance of a red card at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted August 22, 2018 Report Share Posted August 22, 2018 31 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Surely an argument though isn't whether he's innocent or guilty, but whether it's conclusive? If it's inconclusive, then it means case not proven- because it can't be. Sort of a legal no man's land. However I agree that if the boot was on the other foot etc- but the FA's job is to take all that into account and come up with a fair conclusion based on the evidence. Don't see how he's guilty based on the evidence at hand personally- at the same time though, it may not mean he's innocent either necessarily. IConclusive is not the threshold Its the balance of probabilities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted August 22, 2018 Report Share Posted August 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said: IConclusive is not the threshold Its the balance of probabilities Interested in this. Do FA not allow for a potential verdict of 'Case not proven'? As in binary yes or no based OK evidence available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted August 22, 2018 Report Share Posted August 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Interested in this. Do FA not allow for a potential verdict of 'Case not proven'? As in binary yes or no based OK evidence available? You’ve lost me ? FA panels certainly find cases ‘Not proven’ Succeeded on a fair few myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted August 22, 2018 Report Share Posted August 22, 2018 47 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said: You’ve lost me ? FA panels certainly find cases ‘Not proven’ Succeeded on a fair few myself Yeah, I perhaps wasn't the clearest. Just wondering what it wsd that tipped this case from- using balance of probability- a possible verdict of 'case not proven' to 'guilty'. I'm no legal expert, but would have thought that a 'case not proven' verdict may have been appropriate here- even taking into account the FA using balance of probability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted August 22, 2018 Report Share Posted August 22, 2018 41 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Yeah, I perhaps wasn't the clearest. Just wondering what it wsd that tipped this case from- using balance of probability- a possible verdict of 'case not proven' to 'guilty'. I'm no legal expert, but would have thought that a 'case not proven' verdict may have been appropriate here- even taking into account the FA using balance of probability. Think it comes down to what they see as important The only direct evidence is the testimony of Davis and Dean and there are then various aspects , Davis’s Reaction , what was said to the officials etc etc , that they would individually ‘weight’ in terms of significance / corroboration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted August 23, 2018 Report Share Posted August 23, 2018 15 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Spot on. Some people say there's plenty of evidence, but I just can't see it personally. Ha course you're (In Dean's case) gonna corroborate what your mate says, particular if there is the chance of a red card at the time. Do you really think it likely that somebody is going to make it up that he was spat on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted August 23, 2018 Report Share Posted August 23, 2018 3 hours ago, NickJ said: Do you really think it likely that somebody is going to make it up that he was spat on? Do you think it likely that players dive to win penalties and get people sent off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted August 23, 2018 Report Share Posted August 23, 2018 19 minutes ago, Roger Red Hat said: Do you think it likely that players dive to win penalties and get people sent off? Players dive and are proven from TV replays to have cheated. Diving - cheating - seems acceptable these days. Spitting is still - rightly - almost universally condemned in this country. Show me where a player has claimed to have been spat on, and it was proven to be a false claim, and I will accept you have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Red Hat Posted August 23, 2018 Report Share Posted August 23, 2018 3 hours ago, NickJ said: Players dive and are proven from TV replays to have cheated. Diving - cheating - seems acceptable these days. Spitting is still - rightly - almost universally condemned in this country. Show me where a player has claimed to have been spat on, and it was proven to be a false claim, and I will accept you have a point. I don’t know if he spat or not, I wasn’t there, nor have I seen any replay evidence. Basically, the same as the people that found him guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeAman08 Posted August 23, 2018 Report Share Posted August 23, 2018 Whatever the reasons the ban has been placed why is there no action against HD then? I remember the altercation but not the foul. Was it bad? Was intentional as everyone has admitted. Is that not violent conduct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2018 Report Share Posted August 23, 2018 21 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said: Think it comes down to what they see as important Well they didn't seem to think that NOT wiping spit off his face was important.... Would you (or anyone) honestly carry on running around with spit on their face? This player did and even complained to the officials with it still on him - yet none of them seen anything visible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted August 23, 2018 Report Share Posted August 23, 2018 On 22/08/2018 at 14:23, italian dave said: More to the point, the players know what to do. Player one squares up to Davis after a tackle or foul, jerks his head backwards, a nearby City player has a moan to the linesman, and Bobs your uncle. .......................City player gets 3 game ban for simulation and player that moaned to ref gets a 2 game ban for aiding and abetting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted August 23, 2018 Report Share Posted August 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, wood_red said: Well they didn't seem to think that NOT wiping spit off his face was important.... Would you (or anyone) honestly carry on running around with spit on their face? This player did and even complained to the officials with it still on him - yet none of them seen anything visible. The only reason you would, is to show it to a match official as evidence of the offence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.